Veritas Party Policy
The European Union
An Explanation of Veritas Policy on the European Union
"The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe."
― Mikhail Gorbachev
"Europe's nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding of what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."
Jean Monnet, founding father of the EU
“The advantages of the European Union are remarkably elusive…I cannot pinpoint a single concrete economic advantage that unambiguously comes to this country because of our membership”
Norman Lamont, Former Chancellor of the Exchequer
At the core of our beliefs are the concepts of nationhood and democracy.
We believe that nations should be sovereign; each governed by its own parliament elected by the nation’s citizens and responding to the needs, circumstances and aspirations of the nation and sensitive to inherited culture and tradition. Our vision is of the state serving the nation within an effective democratic framework; and yet open to, and encouraging of, mutually beneficial and collaborative relationships with other nations in a spirit of internationalism for the sake of global security, justice and prosperity. We believe that such relationships should respect the autonomy of the partners to the relationship; and should be consensual rather than coercive.
How our values and beliefs are compromised by the European Union.
1. There is no such thing as a "one-size-fits-all"
We do not believe that the concept of democracy is well served by a centralised decision-making authority forcefully applying ‘one-size-fits-all’ policies to a union of over 500 million people characterised by diverse cultures, temperaments, political traditions and economic competencies. The European Parliament is an expensive, wasteful and useless sop to democracy: a deceit. Democracy is best served when citizens are meaningfully and effectively able to participate in, and influence, the decision-making that affects their lives: clearly, in a political entity of over 500 million citizens, that is practically impossible.
The founding concept of the European Union was to create a single European political entity that would make war impossible. That vision is now being driven by those who have contempt for the concept of nationhood, advocates of the concepts of ‘world without borders’/’world government’, ‘big business’ that sees opportunities for lowering costs and gaining a larger market and by geo-political strategists who advocate the formation of global power blocs. The welfare of nations is under threat.
We do not wish to be divorced from the European Union – because we support the notion of mutuality; but we wish to have a relationship with it that respects our beliefs and values and not one that binds us into the evolving centralised, unitary European state that is the concept of the ‘founding fathers’ of the Union.
2. It undermines principles of democracy, nationhood and freedom
We will not accept a relationship based on coercion; but one that respects nationhood, freedom and democracy. We seek a relationship that respects our sovereignty and our borders; and yet offers us the opportunity to develop our trade throughout the world and participate in projects to defend and promote freedom, democracy, justice and sustainable prosperity in Europe, to defend its heritage and civilisation and, based on these ideals, be an advocate for global peace and security.
3. It undermines the ability to control our borders and the right to choose the type of skills and labour that we need
We, in Veritas, have difficulty with the continued observance of one of the ‘four pillars’ of the European Union’s Single Market – the free movement of people. The free movement of people, while appearing a noble aspiration, has demonstrably difficult consequences for those nations that have limited resources and land area and are popular destinations for substantial flows of immigrants.
4. It has undermined our culture, our heritage and had a negative impact on our environment
The population fo the UK is set to reach an alarming 70 million within the next 12 years; we are already the most densely populated country within Europe. This we believe is not sustainable.
Large migratory movements can create significant economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts that have to be managed for the well-being of the nation. We are concerned about the effect of this on England in particular – a popular destination for migrants throughout the world.
We are not against migration, but we believe that a nation should have the ability to control it should it wish to do so. A nation should have the power to control its borders: it can choose to operate an ‘open borders’ policy or have some measure of restriction on migration dependent on its needs, wishes and circumstances. Nations should not be dictated to in this regard. What belongs to a nation is in the nation’s gift to give away. A nation can choose to dissolve itself if it so wishes; it is for its citizens to decide.
5. Uncontrolled mass immigration has undermined our ability to offer suitable housing, healthcare provision, schooling, training for our younsters, driven down wages for local people and created job losses and more.
We believe that a nation should have control over immigration within the framework of its population policy; the freedom of movement of people has to be tempered by a need for nations to manage the size and growth of their populations relative to the resources available and the social and cultural impacts.
6. As Norman Lamont clearly, stated we believe being in the EU gives us nothing of any real economic value in return
We are concerned, too, about the financial cost to the United Kingdom, through its budget contribution, of maintaining a programme of projects within the European Union that are clearly designed to pave the way towards, and cultivate an acceptance of, a unified European state and an erosion of national sovereignty, projects that are overly bureaucratic in their management and deliver very little real and lasting benefit to taxpayers, the largesse extended to members of the European Parliament and Commission, the misappropriation of funds and the suspicions held over the integrity of the Union’s accounts, and the distribution of EU ‘foreign aid’ that sometimes runs counter to the UK’s own policy on aid distribution. Indeed, new EU legislation means that we can no longer determine our own foreign aid budgets which is now set at 0.7 of GDP and is £11.5 billion + annually.
7. It has undermined our ability to make our own laws and govern ourselves
We do not accept the supremacy of EU law in our national affairs. We believe that our national parliament should be the final arbiter of the laws that shall apply to the nation.
The sort of European Union we would like to see.
We have a vision of a European Union that can defend and nourish the interests and well-being of its constituent nations; that brings us closer together without sacrificing the heritage, culture, identity and ultimate national autonomy that are important to us. The Union creates a model for people to work effectively together in tackling issues of common concern and mutual interest and so improve the quality of life, to achieve together what we can’t achieve alone and to learn from each other and disseminate knowledge, skills and experience.
Geo-political strategic reasons for union could be compelling as new global power blocs emerge with implications for resources and security. Strength in unity might be beneficial in a world where the centres of power are shifting. The European Union is establishing itself as a major global negotiating bloc. With the loss of membership the United Kingdom could be left out of important decision-making processes; and this could be a disadvantage as it has important strategic global interests in the areas of trade, investments and material/energy resources.
However, we see the notion of a European super-state – a single, integrated and centrally-controlled political and economic entity, envisaged by the founders of the EU and still pursued by their enthusiasts, being outmoded and undesirable. We advocate an alternative, inter-governmental, structure based on the concept of confederation – a model that facilitates a balance between autonomy and mutuality.
This confederation would be sufficiently flexible to accommodate both those nations wishing to proceed to full economic, political and social union and those wishing to create and maintain sustainable relationships based on the retention of their national sovereignty. The key is flexibility; and the common interest is in developing and maintaining sustainable economic prosperity and opportunity, stability, security, justice and peace throughout theUnion. Decisions on common actions would be consensual and voluntary.
There would be no coercion or power of veto, there would be no question of a nation having a decision forced on it that did not have the consent of its parliament: nations would opt in or out of joint programmes according to their preferences. The confederation would be served by a lean and efficient administrative secretariat and inter-governmental and professional working groups to progress work on joint projects.
We believe that this proposal would find favour with those other European nations that also see benefit in a more open and flexible European Union, and not the ‘one-size-fits-all’ concept that drives the development of the EU today.
Our policy on the European Union.
We believe that the terms of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union have damaged both the integrity and sovereignty of our nation and the democratic basis on which it is governed. We, therefore, reject these terms.
We do not believe that it is necessary to relinquish nationhood and be subject to centralised economic management and political control in order to extract the benefits of cooperation in trade, industry and other important areas and to sustain a peaceful European continent. We note the various trade agreements that the EU has negotiated with other nations and trading blocs, including the inclusion of Turkey in a customs union agreement.
We will continue to support the concept of a confederation of European nation-states, the inner core of which may be comprised of nations that have opted for full integration along the lines of the ‘federal system of pooled sovereignty’ advocated by Mr Barroso, President of the European Commission.
We would make clear the detailed nature of the relationship that we would like to see existing between the United Kingdom and other members of the European Union - with the United Kingdom being positioned within the Union or, if necessary, outside of it.
In essence, this is the retention of national and parliamentary sovereignty having ultimate jurisdiction over all of the UK’s economic, environmental and social policy and having full control of its borders and immigration from both EU and non-EU sources. We would wish to work collaboratively and creatively with other nations within the EU in matters of common interest and mutual concern. We would contrast this desired relationship with the planned evolution of the Unionaccording to its original blueprint – a European state with centralised political, economic and social control.
The introduction of the Single Market laid the foundations for economic integration within the European Union, including the freedom of movement of people throughout the Unionto live and work where they please without reference to national borders. If no opt-out - leaving control of admission of people to the UK to the discretion of the UK Parliament according to needs and circumstances - can be negotiated from this particular feature of the Single Market then we will advocate withdrawal from the Single Market and, consequently, from the European Union.
We will evaluate the benefits conferred to the UK economy through membership of the Single Market, and the consequences for the economy of leaving it. We will ensure that citizens of theUK are informed of our findings before holding a referendum.
If, after attempts at negotiation, we are unable to achieve the desired relationship – as a continuing member of the European Union - that we have described we will hold a referendum amongst the citizens of theUnited Kingdomin which we will call for the withdrawal of theUnited Kingdomfrom the European Union. We will do so on the understanding following withdrawal we would seek a close relationship with the European Union, but one that respects our policy position in respect of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, its parliaments and governing institutions.
If anyone has any comments or is interested in assisting us in this hugely important area, please contact the Director of Policy and Strategy at info.veritas-party.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Future Posts Via Facebook
Due to the constraints of the General Election, please visit our Facebook page by clicking on the link at the top right of our Homepage for up-to-date commentary on current affairs. Thank you.
Veritas on 30/03/15
read more . . .
Veritas on Facebook